People vs. Dela Cruz

The death penalty for incestuous rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, may be imposed only where both the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender are alleged in the information and proved during trial with competent evidence beyond the victim's bare testimony. Failure to prove minority by birth certificate or equivalent documentary evidence reduces the imposable penalty to reclusion perpetua, and an information charging violation of R.A. No. 7610 "either by raping her or committing acts of lasciviousness" without designating the specific section violated or averring the acts constituting the offense is void for violating the right to be informed of the accusation.

Danilo dela Cruz y Carizza married Jean dela Cruz in 1977 and 1978 and begot four children, including complainant Jeannie Ann dela Cruz, born April 18, 1979. Accused-appellant was a teacher who worked at Don Bosco Technical Institute in Tarlac and at schools in Baguio City, residing on weekdays in Tarlac and returning to the family home in Baguio City periodically. The governing law for the 1990 and 1995 incidents was Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code on rape, with R.A. No. 7659 having taken effect December 31, 1993 to impose death for rape attended by minority and relationship, while the 1997 charge invoked R.A. No. 7610 on special protection of children.

Accused-appellant Danilo dela Cruz y Carizza and his wife Jean begot four children, Jeannie Ann, Divine Grace, Daniel Jay and Gerard Niño. The family initially lived in an extension of the maternal grandmother's house at No. 2 Sumulong Street, Baguio City, with the parents and two sons in the basement and the two daughters on the second floor. Accused-appellant taught at Don Bosco Technical Institute in Tarlac from 1978 to 1986, then in Baguio City, and from 1993 again in Tarlac until his 1997 arrest, staying in Sto. Cristo, Tarlac on weekdays with son Daniel and returning to Baguio City every payday or weekend.

According to Jeannie Ann, born April 18, 1979 in Tarlac, accused-appellant began molesting her at age seven while helping with homework at night, making her hold and masturbate his penis and at times placing it in her mouth, warning her not to tell her mother because it was normal between father and daughter and her mother might kill them. The abuse continued as she grew, accompanied by threats to hurt her, her siblings or her mother if she refused. She recounted three specific incidents at trial.

Sometime in September 1990, when she was 11 and the family had moved to the basement at No. 37 Leonard Wood Road after the July 16, 1990 earthquake destroyed the Sumulong house, she was left with three-year-old Niño and accused-appellant while her mother and sister went to market. In the living room accused-appellant undressed her, removed his pants, laid her on a cushion, played with her genitalia and rubbed his penis against her private part until white liquid emerged, after which she felt pain (mahapdi) upon urinating. She did not resist, believing the act normal.

One night in July 1995, when she was 16, she was watching television with siblings while her mother attended a church meeting. After calling her three times, accused-appellant pulled her into a bedroom, told her it would only take a while, undressed her, inserted his finger in her vagina, mashed her breasts, licked her vagina, rubbed his penis against her vagina and inserted it such that she felt half the head inside, until semen came out which he placed on her stomach. She only cried from fear because he had threatened to kill her or her family.

On August 2, 1997, at age 18, she returned from Saint Louis University about 10:30 a.m. to the Sumulong house and was repeatedly called to the attic by accused-appellant, who lay on the bed. When she went up to clean as her mother had instructed, he asked her to sit on the bed, lifted her t-shirt and brassiere, mashed her breasts and inserted his hand and finger inside her pants and vagina while whispering professions of love and demands for cooperation and secrecy. He stopped when boarder Aileen called her, fixed her clothes, then embraced and touched her again after Aileen left, despite the presence in the house of Divine, Niño, Aileen and another boarder Rogel. Afterwards she went out, flagged down a police L-300 van, reported to SPO2 Bravo and SPO2 Melchor Ong that her father had molested her, identified accused-appellant at the house, and he voluntarily accompanied police to the station where she gave a Women's Desk statement.

Corroboration came from NBI medico-legal officer Dr. Ronald R. Bandonill, who on August 8, 1997 found two old healed hymenal lacerations at 5 and 7 o'clock possibly inflicted more than three months earlier at the same time by an erect organ, finger or rigid object, with lax vaginal walls and a hymenal orifice admitting a 2.4 cm tube with ease indicating possible repeated penetration. Her mother Jean testified she learned of the abuse only on August 2, 1997, confronted and assaulted accused-appellant at the station, later received his letters asking forgiveness, and found in Tarlac love letters and photographs from Emily and Maureen indicating other relationships. SPO2 Ong confirmed the roadside complaint and voluntary surrender.

Accused-appellant denied all charges, testifying he provided for the family, went home August 1, 1997 and on August 2 merely removed a dead rat from the attic and asked Jeannie Ann to help sweep, spoke to her about disobedience, and went down to meet visitors before police arrived and invited him without stated purpose, later making him sign an unread statement without counsel and eyeglasses. He admitted dismissal from Saint Louis Center where student Freda Miguel had complained he embraced her in the laboratory, though settled amicably, and admitted the Emily and Maureen letters were his but claimed mere friendship. He claimed fabrication motivated by Jeannie Ann's resentment over her breakup with boyfriend Charles and by his wife's alleged paramours Alfredo dela Cruz and Alfredo Aquino, with barangay captain Camilo Estepa confirming a 1993 malicious mischief complaint against Aquino, and school officials Fr. Exequiel Veloso and Fr. Jean Marie Tchang attesting to his competence and good conduct. The trial court credited Jeannie Ann as natural, coherent and touching, noting her tears, anguish and shame, and found accused-appellant evasive.

• Credibility of Victim: Accused-appellant contended the trial court erred in giving credence to Jeannie Ann's testimony and in finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt, alleging her testimony was fabricated and inconsistent.
• Delay in Reporting: Accused-appellant argued Jeannie Ann's failure to immediately notify authorities or her mother despite his frequent absences in Tarlac, taking eleven years to disclose, was abnormal and indicative of untruthfulness, especially as a child of tender age suffering pain should have complained.
• Motive to Fabricate: Accused-appellant maintained the charges were conspired by wife and daughter from resentment, with Jeannie Ann blaming him for her breakup with boyfriend Charles and his wife seeking to remove him to pursue an extra-marital relationship.

• Credibility and Guilt for Rape: Whether accused-appellant was proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape in September 1990 and July 1995 despite alleged fabrication, inconsistency and long-delayed reporting.
• Death Penalty for Qualified Rape: Whether the death penalty was properly imposed in Criminal Case No. 15164-R for the July 1995 rape where minority and father-daughter relationship were alleged.
• Validity of R.A. No. 7610 Information: Whether accused-appellant could be convicted of rape or acts of lasciviousness under the information in Criminal Case No. 15368-R charging sexual abuse "either by raping her or committing acts of lasciviousness."
• Civil Liability: Whether the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages should be modified in the rape cases.

• Credibility and Guilt for Rape: Yes. Guilt for both rapes was established beyond reasonable doubt on the victim's categorical, consistent testimony, delay being explained by threats and moral ascendancy and denial being inherently weak.
• Death Penalty for Qualified Rape: No. Death was improper because minority, though alleged, was proved only by bare testimony without birth certificate or equivalent documentary evidence, leaving reclusion perpetua as the imposable penalty.
• Validity of R.A. No. 7610 Information: No. The information was void for failing to designate the specific R.A. No. 7610 provision violated and to aver the acts constituting the offense, violating the right to be informed, so the case was dismissed motu proprio.
• Civil Liability: Yes, increased. An additional P50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto was awarded for each rape count alongside the P50,000.00 moral damages affirmed.

• Credibility and Guilt for Rape: Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code prior to R.A. No. 8353, rape is committed by carnal knowledge under force or intimidation or when the woman is under twelve, punishable by reclusion perpetua, reviewed under guidelines requiring extreme caution where only two persons are involved and requiring the prosecution to stand on its own merits. The victim's testimony, found natural, coherent and touching and marked by tears, anguish and shame, was categorical, straightforward and consistent on push-and-pull penetration with pain in 1990 and half-penetration with seminal emission in 1995, satisfying credibility; no woman, especially a Filipino child bound by reverence to parents, would fabricate incest, undergo genital examination and endure public trial absent truth. Delay was explained by continuous threats to kill her or family and paternal moral ascendancy creating psychological terror numbing her into silence, a recognized pattern in incestuous rape. Bare denial could not prevail over positive testimony, and alleged motives — revenge for breakup with Charles or the wife's use of the daughter to pursue paramours — were unbelievable and unnatural, no mother ordinarily exposing her daughter to stigma as an engine of malice.
• Death Penalty for Qualified Rape: The September 1990 rape, committed before R.A. No. 7659 took effect December 31, 1993, was correctly punished with reclusion perpetua. For the July 1995 rape under Article 335 as amended by R.A. No. 7659, death requires concurrence of minority under eighteen and relationship as parent, which are special qualifying circumstances altering the nature of the crime and must both be alleged and proved. Relationship was alleged and proved, but minority rested solely on testimony of birth on April 18, 1979 without birth certificate, baptismal certificate or school records, and was therefore insufficient, reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua.
• Validity of R.A. No. 7610 Information: The information charged sexual abuse "either by raping her or committing acts of lasciviousness" which debased the victim, without citing which of the numerous sections of R.A. No. 7610 was violated and without averring specific acts, omissions or qualifying circumstances as required by Section 8, Rule 110. Such conclusions of law, not facts, failed to constitute an offense and violated Article III, Section 14(2) of the Constitution. Though unraised below, dismissal motu proprio was proper under Suy Sui vs. People because the defect was patent and an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case open for correction of assigned or unassigned errors.
• Civil Liability: Civil indemnity ex delicto, equivalent to actual or compensatory damages and mandatory upon finding of rape, is distinct from moral damages under Article 2217 of the Civil Code for physical suffering and anguish. Under prevailing jurisprudence, reclusion perpetua for rape carries P50,000.00 civil indemnity plus P50,000.00 moral damages automatically granted without proof of suffering, warranting addition of civil indemnity to the trial court's moral damages awards.

• Credibility in rape cases — Where the woman's testimony under oath that she was raped meets the test of credibility, being categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, frank and consistent, conviction may rest thereon; the trial court's evaluation is accorded great weight for its unique opportunity to observe deportment, and is disturbed only upon showing it overlooked or misapplied facts of weight affecting the result.
• Delay in reporting incestuous rape — Delay does not necessarily impair credibility where attributable to a pattern of fear instilled by threats of bodily harm from one exercising moral ascendancy; concealment by a young girl threatened with death to herself or family is not uncommon.
• Denial as defense — Denial, like alibi, is inherently weak and constitutes negative evidence that cannot prevail over positive and credible testimony that the accused committed the crime.
• Unnaturalness of fabricated incest charge — No woman would fabricate sexual abuse, submit to genital examination and endure public trial recounting details absent truth, especially against her own father given deeply ingrained Filipino reverence for parents; nor would a mother ordinarily use her offspring as an engine of malice exposing them to stigma to pursue an illicit relationship.
• Qualified rape by minority and relationship — Under Article 335 as amended by R.A. No. 7659, minority under eighteen and relationship as parent or specified relative are special qualifying circumstances altering the nature of rape to warrant death, and must both be alleged in the information and established during trial by competent proof such as birth certificate or equivalent documents, not bare testimony alone.
• Sufficiency of information — Under Section 8, Rule 110, the information must state the designation of the offense, aver the acts or omissions constituting it, and specify qualifying and aggravating circumstances, or reference the section punishing it; conclusions of law without factual averments render it void for violating the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation.
• Scope of criminal appeal and motu proprio dismissal — An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review, imposing a duty to correct errors found whether assigned or not, including patent violation of due process warranting dismissal.
• Civil indemnity vs. moral damages in rape — Civil indemnity ex delicto, equivalent to actual damages, is mandatory upon finding of rape and distinct from moral damages for suffering under Article 2217 of the Civil Code; moral damages are automatically granted in rape without need of proof, and prevailing jurisprudence fixes P50,000.00 each where penalty is reclusion perpetua.

• "The pattern of instilling fear, utilized by the perpetrator in incestuous rape to intimidate his victim into submission, is evident in virtually all cases that have reached this Court." — States the recognized psychological terror in incest cases explaining the victim's long silence and submission despite moral ascendancy of the father.
• "Denial, like alibi, is an inherently weak defense and cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused committed the crime." — Rejects accused-appellant's bare denials as insufficient against the victim's affirmative, credible account.
• "The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances." — Quotes Section 8, Rule 110 as basis for voiding the R.A. No. 7610 information for stating legal conclusions instead of facts.

• People vs. Nicolas, 324 SCRA 748 (2000) — Quoted for the doctrine that perpetrators in incestuous rape instill fear to create psychological terror numbing the victim into silence, applied to explain delayed reporting.
• People vs. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 140333-34, December 11, 2001 — Cited for guidelines in reviewing rape cases and for mandatory civil indemnity upon finding of rape.
• People vs. Supnad, G.R. Nos. 133791-94, August 8, 2001 — Cited for credibility of categorical rape testimony and weakness of denial.
• Suy Sui vs. People, 92 Phil. 684 (1953) — Authority for motu proprio dismissal of a patent void information violating the right to be informed, even if unraised below.
• Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298 (2000) — Cited for the rule that conclusions of law without factual averments fail to sufficiently allege the offense.
• People vs. Baniqued, G.R. Nos. 130653 and 139384, December 11, 2001; People vs. Gabon, G.R. No. 127003, November 16, 2001; People vs. Ferolino, G.R. Nos. 131730-31, April 5, 2000 — Cited as a line requiring both allegation and proof of minority and relationship to impose death for qualified rape.

• Article 335, Revised Penal Code (pre-R.A. No. 8353; as amended by R.A. No. 7659, Sec. 11) — Defines rape by force or intimidation or where victim is under twelve or demented, punishable by reclusion perpetua, with death where victim is under eighteen and offender is parent or specified relative; applied to sustain reclusion perpetua for 1990 statutory rape and to reduce 1995 sentence for unproved minority.
• Article 336, Revised Penal Code — Defines and punishes acts of lasciviousness; the trial court convicted thereunder instead of R.A. No. 7610, but conviction was voided with the information.
• Republic Act No. 7610, Articles III-V — Punishes specific forms of child prostitution, trafficking, obscene exhibitions and abuse; the information's failure to cite any specific section or aver acts showed no offense was charged.
• Section 8, Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure — Requires information to designate the offense, aver acts or omissions, and specify qualifying circumstances; violation rendered the R.A. No. 7610 information void.
• Article III, Section 14(2), Constitution — Guarantees the right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation; basis for voiding the defective information.
• Article 2217, Civil Code — Defines moral damages for physical suffering, anguish and humiliation; distinguished from mandatory civil indemnity ex delicto in rape.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing (no part in deliberations), Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, and Corona, JJ., concur.